I'd like to call a vote to merge the HDFS-4949 branch (in-memory caching)to trunk. Colin McCabe and I have been hard at work the last 3.5 monthsimplementing this feature, and feel that it's reached a level of stabilityand utility where it's ready for broader testing and integration.

I'd also like to thank Chris Nauroth at Hortonworks for code reviews andbug fixes, and everyone who's reviewed the HDFS-4949 design doc and leftcomments.

Obviously, I am +1 for the merge. The vote will run the standard 7 days,closing on October 24 at 11:59PM.

On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Andrew Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Hello all,>> I'd like to call a vote to merge the HDFS-4949 branch (in-memory caching)> to trunk. Colin McCabe and I have been hard at work the last 3.5 months> implementing this feature, and feel that it's reached a level of stability> and utility where it's ready for broader testing and integration.>> I'd also like to thank Chris Nauroth at Hortonworks for code reviews and> bug fixes, and everyone who's reviewed the HDFS-4949 design doc and left> comments.>> Obviously, I am +1 for the merge. The vote will run the standard 7 days,> closing on October 24 at 11:59PM.>> Thanks,> Andrew

I agree that the code has reached a stable point. Colin and Andrew, thankyou for your contributions and collaboration.

Throughout development, I've watched the feature grow by running dailybuilds in a pseudo-distributed deployment. As of this week, the fullfeature set is working end-to-end. I also think we've reached a point ofAPI stability for clients who want to control caching programmatically.

There are several things that I'd like to see completed before the merge aspre-requisites:

- HDFS-5203: Concurrent clients that add a cache directive on the same pathmay prematurely uncache from each other.- HDFS-5385: Caching RPCs are AtMostOnce, but do not persist client ID andcall ID to edit log.- HDFS-5386: Add feature documentation for datanode caching.- Standard clean-ups to satisfy Jenkins pre-commit on the merge patch. (For example, I know we've introduced some Javadoc warnings.)- Full test suite run on Windows. (The feature is not yet implemented onWindows. This is just intended to catch regressions.)- Test plan posted to HDFS-4949, similar in scope to the snapshot test planthat was posted to HDFS-2802. For my own part, I've run the new unittests, and I've tested end-to-end in a pseudo-distributed deployment. It'sunlikely that I'll get a chance to test fully distributed before the votecloses, so I'm curious to hear if you've done this on your side yet.

Also, I want to confirm that this vote only covers trunk. I don't seebranch-2 mentioned, so I assume that we're not voting on merge to branch-2yet.

Before I cast my vote, can you please discuss whether or not it's feasibleto complete all of the above in the next 7 days? For the issues assignedto me, I do expect to complete them.

> +1. Thanks, guys.>> best,> Colin>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Andrew Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:> > Hello all,> >> > I'd like to call a vote to merge the HDFS-4949 branch (in-memory caching)> > to trunk. Colin McCabe and I have been hard at work the last 3.5 months> > implementing this feature, and feel that it's reached a level of> stability> > and utility where it's ready for broader testing and integration.> >> > I'd also like to thank Chris Nauroth at Hortonworks for code reviews and> > bug fixes, and everyone who's reviewed the HDFS-4949 design doc and left> > comments.> >> > Obviously, I am +1 for the merge. The vote will run the standard 7 days,> > closing on October 24 at 11:59PM.> >> > Thanks,> > Andrew>

-- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICENOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.

I think it's feasible to complete those tasks in the next 7 days.Andrew is on HDFS-5386.

The test plan document is a great idea. We'll try to get that upearly next week. We have a lot of unit tests now, clearly, but somemanual testing is important too.

If we discover any issues during testing, then we can push out themerge timeframe. For example, one area that probably needs moretesting is caching+federation.

I would like to get HDFS-5378 and HDFS-5366 in as well.

The other subtasks are "nice to have" but not really critical, and Ithink it would be just as easy to do them in trunk. We're hoping thathaving this in trunk will make it easier for us to collaborate onHDFS-2832 and other ongoing work.

> Also, I want to confirm that this vote only covers trunk.> I don't see branch-2 mentioned, so I assume that we're> not voting on merge to branch-2 yet.

Yeah, this vote is only to merge to trunk.

cheers.Colin

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Chris Nauroth<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> I agree that the code has reached a stable point. Colin and Andrew, thank> you for your contributions and collaboration.>> Throughout development, I've watched the feature grow by running daily> builds in a pseudo-distributed deployment. As of this week, the full> feature set is working end-to-end. I also think we've reached a point of> API stability for clients who want to control caching programmatically.>> There are several things that I'd like to see completed before the merge as> pre-requisites:>> - HDFS-5203: Concurrent clients that add a cache directive on the same path> may prematurely uncache from each other.> - HDFS-5385: Caching RPCs are AtMostOnce, but do not persist client ID and> call ID to edit log.> - HDFS-5386: Add feature documentation for datanode caching.> - Standard clean-ups to satisfy Jenkins pre-commit on the merge patch.> (For example, I know we've introduced some Javadoc warnings.)> - Full test suite run on Windows. (The feature is not yet implemented on> Windows. This is just intended to catch regressions.)> - Test plan posted to HDFS-4949, similar in scope to the snapshot test plan> that was posted to HDFS-2802. For my own part, I've run the new unit> tests, and I've tested end-to-end in a pseudo-distributed deployment. It's> unlikely that I'll get a chance to test fully distributed before the vote> closes, so I'm curious to hear if you've done this on your side yet.>> Also, I want to confirm that this vote only covers trunk. I don't see> branch-2 mentioned, so I assume that we're not voting on merge to branch-2> yet.>> Before I cast my vote, can you please discuss whether or not it's feasible> to complete all of the above in the next 7 days? For the issues assigned> to me, I do expect to complete them.>> Thanks again for all of your hard work!>> Chris Nauroth> Hortonworks> http://hortonworks.com/>>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Colin McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:>>> +1. Thanks, guys.>>>> best,>> Colin>>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Andrew Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> wrote:>> > Hello all,>> >>> > I'd like to call a vote to merge the HDFS-4949 branch (in-memory caching)>> > to trunk. Colin McCabe and I have been hard at work the last 3.5 months>> > implementing this feature, and feel that it's reached a level of>> stability>> > and utility where it's ready for broader testing and integration.>> >>> > I'd also like to thank Chris Nauroth at Hortonworks for code reviews and>> > bug fixes, and everyone who's reviewed the HDFS-4949 design doc and left>> > comments.>> >>> > Obviously, I am +1 for the merge. The vote will run the standard 7 days,>> > closing on October 24 at 11:59PM.>> >>> > Thanks,>> > Andrew>>>> --> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to> which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,

> Hi Chris,>> I think it's feasible to complete those tasks in the next 7 days.> Andrew is on HDFS-5386.>> The test plan document is a great idea. We'll try to get that up> early next week. We have a lot of unit tests now, clearly, but some> manual testing is important too.>> If we discover any issues during testing, then we can push out the> merge timeframe. For example, one area that probably needs more> testing is caching+federation.>> I would like to get HDFS-5378 and HDFS-5366 in as well.>> The other subtasks are "nice to have" but not really critical, and I> think it would be just as easy to do them in trunk. We're hoping that> having this in trunk will make it easier for us to collaborate on> HDFS-2832 and other ongoing work.>> > Also, I want to confirm that this vote only covers trunk.> > I don't see branch-2 mentioned, so I assume that we're> > not voting on merge to branch-2 yet.>> Yeah, this vote is only to merge to trunk.>> cheers.> Colin>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Chris Nauroth> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > I agree that the code has reached a stable point. Colin and Andrew,> thank> > you for your contributions and collaboration.> >> > Throughout development, I've watched the feature grow by running daily> > builds in a pseudo-distributed deployment. As of this week, the full> > feature set is working end-to-end. I also think we've reached a point of> > API stability for clients who want to control caching programmatically.> >> > There are several things that I'd like to see completed before the merge> as> > pre-requisites:> >> > - HDFS-5203: Concurrent clients that add a cache directive on the same> path> > may prematurely uncache from each other.> > - HDFS-5385: Caching RPCs are AtMostOnce, but do not persist client ID> and> > call ID to edit log.> > - HDFS-5386: Add feature documentation for datanode caching.> > - Standard clean-ups to satisfy Jenkins pre-commit on the merge patch.> > (For example, I know we've introduced some Javadoc warnings.)> > - Full test suite run on Windows. (The feature is not yet implemented on> > Windows. This is just intended to catch regressions.)> > - Test plan posted to HDFS-4949, similar in scope to the snapshot test> plan> > that was posted to HDFS-2802. For my own part, I've run the new unit> > tests, and I've tested end-to-end in a pseudo-distributed deployment.> It's> > unlikely that I'll get a chance to test fully distributed before the vote> > closes, so I'm curious to hear if you've done this on your side yet.> >> > Also, I want to confirm that this vote only covers trunk. I don't see> > branch-2 mentioned, so I assume that we're not voting on merge to> branch-2> > yet.> >> > Before I cast my vote, can you please discuss whether or not it's> feasible> > to complete all of the above in the next 7 days? For the issues assigned> > to me, I do expect to complete them.> >> > Thanks again for all of your hard work!> >> > Chris Nauroth> > Hortonworks> > http://hortonworks.com/> >> >> >> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Colin McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote:> >> >> +1. Thanks, guys.> >>> >> best,> >> Colin> >>> >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Andrew Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> wrote:> >> > Hello all,> >> >> >> > I'd like to call a vote to merge the HDFS-4949 branch (in-memory> caching)> >> > to trunk. Colin McCabe and I have been hard at work the last 3.5> months> >> > implementing this feature, and feel that it's reached a level of> >> stability> >> > and utility where it's ready for broader testing and integration.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICENOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.

I've received some feedback that we haven't handled this merge vote thesame as other comparable merge votes, and that the vote should be resetbecause of this.

The recent custom is that we only call for the merge vote after allpre-requisites have been satisfied. This would include committing to thefeature branch all patches that the devs deem necessary before the codelands in trunk, posting a test plan, posting an updated design doc in caseimplementation choices diverged from the original design doc, and getting agood test-patch run from Jenkins on the merge patch. This was the processfollowed for other recent major features like HDFS-2802 (snapshots),HDFS-347 (short-circuit reads via sharing file descriptors), andHADOOP-8562 (Windows compatibility). In this thread, we've diverged fromthat process by calling for a vote on a branch that hasn't yet completedthe pre-requisites and stating a plan for work to be done before the merge.

I still support this work, but can we please restart the vote after thepre-requisites have landed in the branch?

> +1>> Sounds great!>> Regarding testing caching+federation, this is another thing that I had> intended to pick up as part of HDFS-5149. I'm not sure if I can get this> done in the next 7 days, so I'll keep you posted.>> Chris Nauroth> Hortonworks> http://hortonworks.com/>>>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Colin McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:>>> Hi Chris,>>>> I think it's feasible to complete those tasks in the next 7 days.>> Andrew is on HDFS-5386.>>>> The test plan document is a great idea. We'll try to get that up>> early next week. We have a lot of unit tests now, clearly, but some>> manual testing is important too.>>>> If we discover any issues during testing, then we can push out the>> merge timeframe. For example, one area that probably needs more>> testing is caching+federation.>>>> I would like to get HDFS-5378 and HDFS-5366 in as well.>>>> The other subtasks are "nice to have" but not really critical, and I>> think it would be just as easy to do them in trunk. We're hoping that>> having this in trunk will make it easier for us to collaborate on>> HDFS-2832 and other ongoing work.>>>> > Also, I want to confirm that this vote only covers trunk.>> > I don't see branch-2 mentioned, so I assume that we're>> > not voting on merge to branch-2 yet.>>>> Yeah, this vote is only to merge to trunk.>>>> cheers.>> Colin>>>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Chris Nauroth>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> > I agree that the code has reached a stable point. Colin and Andrew,>> thank>> > you for your contributions and collaboration.>> >>> > Throughout development, I've watched the feature grow by running daily>> > builds in a pseudo-distributed deployment. As of this week, the full>> > feature set is working end-to-end. I also think we've reached a point>> of>> > API stability for clients who want to control caching programmatically.>> >>> > There are several things that I'd like to see completed before the>> merge as>> > pre-requisites:>> >>> > - HDFS-5203: Concurrent clients that add a cache directive on the same>> path>> > may prematurely uncache from each other.>> > - HDFS-5385: Caching RPCs are AtMostOnce, but do not persist client ID>> and>> > call ID to edit log.>> > - HDFS-5386: Add feature documentation for datanode caching.>> > - Standard clean-ups to satisfy Jenkins pre-commit on the merge patch.>> > (For example, I know we've introduced some Javadoc warnings.)>> > - Full test suite run on Windows. (The feature is not yet implemented>> on>> > Windows. This is just intended to catch regressions.)>> > - Test plan posted to HDFS-4949, similar in scope to the snapshot test>> plan>> > that was posted to HDFS-2802. For my own part, I've run the new unit

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICENOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.

Right now we're on track to have all of those things done by tomorrow.Since the remaining issues are either not technical or do not involve majorchanges, I was hoping we could +1 this merge vote in the spirit of "+1pending jenkins". We've gotten clean unit test runs on upstream Jenkins aswell, so the only fixups we should need for test-patch.sh are findbugs andjavac (which are normally pretty trivial to clean up). Of course, all ofyour listed prereqs and test-patch would be taken care of before actuallymerging to trunk.

So, we can reset the vote if you feel strongly about this, but it seemslike the only real result will be delaying the merge by a week.

> I've received some feedback that we haven't handled this merge vote the> same as other comparable merge votes, and that the vote should be reset> because of this.>> The recent custom is that we only call for the merge vote after all> pre-requisites have been satisfied. This would include committing to the> feature branch all patches that the devs deem necessary before the code> lands in trunk, posting a test plan, posting an updated design doc in case> implementation choices diverged from the original design doc, and getting a> good test-patch run from Jenkins on the merge patch. This was the process> followed for other recent major features like HDFS-2802 (snapshots),> HDFS-347 (short-circuit reads via sharing file descriptors), and> HADOOP-8562 (Windows compatibility). In this thread, we've diverged from> that process by calling for a vote on a branch that hasn't yet completed> the pre-requisites and stating a plan for work to be done before the merge.>> I still support this work, but can we please restart the vote after the> pre-requisites have landed in the branch?>> Chris Nauroth> Hortonworks> http://hortonworks.com/>>>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Chris Nauroth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote:>> > +1> >> > Sounds great!> >> > Regarding testing caching+federation, this is another thing that I had> > intended to pick up as part of HDFS-5149. I'm not sure if I can get this> > done in the next 7 days, so I'll keep you posted.> >> > Chris Nauroth> > Hortonworks> > http://hortonworks.com/> >> >> >> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Colin McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote:> >> >> Hi Chris,> >>> >> I think it's feasible to complete those tasks in the next 7 days.> >> Andrew is on HDFS-5386.> >>> >> The test plan document is a great idea. We'll try to get that up> >> early next week. We have a lot of unit tests now, clearly, but some> >> manual testing is important too.> >>> >> If we discover any issues during testing, then we can push out the> >> merge timeframe. For example, one area that probably needs more> >> testing is caching+federation.> >>> >> I would like to get HDFS-5378 and HDFS-5366 in as well.> >>> >> The other subtasks are "nice to have" but not really critical, and I> >> think it would be just as easy to do them in trunk. We're hoping that> >> having this in trunk will make it easier for us to collaborate on> >> HDFS-2832 and other ongoing work.> >>> >> > Also, I want to confirm that this vote only covers trunk.> >> > I don't see branch-2 mentioned, so I assume that we're> >> > not voting on merge to branch-2 yet.> >>> >> Yeah, this vote is only to merge to trunk.> >>> >> cheers.> >> Colin> >>> >> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Chris Nauroth> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> >> > I agree that the code has reached a stable point. Colin and Andrew,> >> thank> >> > you for your contributions and collaboration.> >> >> >> > Throughout development, I've watched the feature grow by running daily> >> > builds in a pseudo-distributed deployment. As of this week, the full> >> > feature set is working end-to-end. I also think we've reached a point

I've come to the conclusion that I'm very confused about merge votes. :-) It's not just about HDFS-4949. I'm confused about all merge votes. Rather than muddy the waters here, I've started a separate discussion oncommon-dev.

I do agree with the general plan outlined here, and I will comment directlyon the HDFS-4949 jira with a binding +1 when I see that we've completedthat plan.

> Hey Chris,>> Right now we're on track to have all of those things done by tomorrow.> Since the remaining issues are either not technical or do not involve major> changes, I was hoping we could +1 this merge vote in the spirit of "+1> pending jenkins". We've gotten clean unit test runs on upstream Jenkins as> well, so the only fixups we should need for test-patch.sh are findbugs and> javac (which are normally pretty trivial to clean up). Of course, all of> your listed prereqs and test-patch would be taken care of before actually> merging to trunk.>> So, we can reset the vote if you feel strongly about this, but it seems> like the only real result will be delaying the merge by a week.>> Thanks,> Andrew>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Chris Nauroth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote:>> > I've received some feedback that we haven't handled this merge vote the> > same as other comparable merge votes, and that the vote should be reset> > because of this.> >> > The recent custom is that we only call for the merge vote after all> > pre-requisites have been satisfied. This would include committing to the> > feature branch all patches that the devs deem necessary before the code> > lands in trunk, posting a test plan, posting an updated design doc in> case> > implementation choices diverged from the original design doc, and> getting a> > good test-patch run from Jenkins on the merge patch. This was the> process> > followed for other recent major features like HDFS-2802 (snapshots),> > HDFS-347 (short-circuit reads via sharing file descriptors), and> > HADOOP-8562 (Windows compatibility). In this thread, we've diverged from> > that process by calling for a vote on a branch that hasn't yet completed> > the pre-requisites and stating a plan for work to be done before the> merge.> >> > I still support this work, but can we please restart the vote after the> > pre-requisites have landed in the branch?> >> > Chris Nauroth> > Hortonworks> > http://hortonworks.com/> >> >> >> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Chris Nauroth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >wrote:> >> > > +1> > >> > > Sounds great!> > >> > > Regarding testing caching+federation, this is another thing that I had> > > intended to pick up as part of HDFS-5149. I'm not sure if I can get> this> > > done in the next 7 days, so I'll keep you posted.> > >> > > Chris Nauroth> > > Hortonworks> > > http://hortonworks.com/> > >> > >> > >> > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Colin McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >wrote:> > >> > >> Hi Chris,> > >>> > >> I think it's feasible to complete those tasks in the next 7 days.> > >> Andrew is on HDFS-5386.> > >>> > >> The test plan document is a great idea. We'll try to get that up> > >> early next week. We have a lot of unit tests now, clearly, but some> > >> manual testing is important too.> > >>> > >> If we discover any issues during testing, then we can push out the> > >> merge timeframe. For example, one area that probably needs more> > >> testing is caching+federation.> > >>> > >> I would like to get HDFS-5378 and HDFS-5366 in as well.> > >>> > >> The other subtasks are "nice to have" but not really critical, and I> > >> think it would be just as easy to do them in trunk. We're hoping that> > >> having this in trunk will make it easier for us to collaborate on> > >> HDFS-2832 and other ongoing work.> > >>> > >> > Also, I want to confirm that this vote only covers trunk.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICENOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.

I don't necessarily disagree with the general questions about theprocedural issues of merge votes. Thanks for bringing that up in the otherthread you mentioned. To some extent it seems like much of this has beenbased on custom, and if folks feel that more precisely defining the mergevote process is warranted, then I think we should take that up over on thatthread.

With regard to this particular merge vote, I've spoken with Chris offlineabout his feelings on this. He said that he is not dead-set on restartingthe vote, though he suspects that others may be. It seems to me theremaining unfinished asks (e.g. updating the design doc) can reasonably bedone either after this vote but before the merge to trunk proper, or couldeven reasonably be done after merging to trunk.

Given that, I'll lend my +1 to this merge. I've been reviewing the branchpretty consistently since work started on it, and have personallyrun/tested several builds of it along the way. I've also reviewed thedesign thoroughly. The implementation, overall design, and API seem to meplenty stable enough to be merged into trunk. I know that there remains ahandful of javac warnings in the branch that aren't in trunk, but I trustthose will be taken care of before the merge.

If anyone out there does feel strongly that this merge vote should berestarted, then please speak up soon. Again, we can restart the vote ifneed be, but I honestly think we'll gain very little by doing so.

> Hi Andrew,>> I've come to the conclusion that I'm very confused about merge votes. :-)> It's not just about HDFS-4949. I'm confused about all merge votes.> Rather than muddy the waters here, I've started a separate discussion on> common-dev.>> I do agree with the general plan outlined here, and I will comment directly> on the HDFS-4949 jira with a binding +1 when I see that we've completed> that plan.>> Chris Nauroth> Hortonworks> http://hortonworks.com/>>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Andrew Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote:>> > Hey Chris,> >> > Right now we're on track to have all of those things done by tomorrow.> > Since the remaining issues are either not technical or do not involve> major> > changes, I was hoping we could +1 this merge vote in the spirit of "+1> > pending jenkins". We've gotten clean unit test runs on upstream Jenkins> as> > well, so the only fixups we should need for test-patch.sh are findbugs> and> > javac (which are normally pretty trivial to clean up). Of course, all of> > your listed prereqs and test-patch would be taken care of before actually> > merging to trunk.> >> > So, we can reset the vote if you feel strongly about this, but it seems> > like the only real result will be delaying the merge by a week.> >> > Thanks,> > Andrew> >> >> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Chris Nauroth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >wrote:> >> > > I've received some feedback that we haven't handled this merge vote the> > > same as other comparable merge votes, and that the vote should be reset> > > because of this.> > >> > > The recent custom is that we only call for the merge vote after all> > > pre-requisites have been satisfied. This would include committing to> the> > > feature branch all patches that the devs deem necessary before the code> > > lands in trunk, posting a test plan, posting an updated design doc in> > case> > > implementation choices diverged from the original design doc, and> > getting a> > > good test-patch run from Jenkins on the merge patch. This was the> > process> > > followed for other recent major features like HDFS-2802 (snapshots),> > > HDFS-347 (short-circuit reads via sharing file descriptors), and> > > HADOOP-8562 (Windows compatibility). In this thread, we've diverged> from> > > that process by calling for a vote on a branch that hasn't yet> completed> > > the pre-requisites and stating a plan for work to be done before the

My preference is to make sure the requirements we have for regular patchesbe applied to feature branch patch as well (3 +1s is the only exception).Alsoadding details about what functionality is missing (I posted a comment onHDFS-4949)and the changes that deferred that will be done post merge to trunk wouldbe good.

It would be better to start the merge vote when the work is ready insteadoftrying to optimize 1 week by doing the required work for merging inparallel withthe vote.

If all the requirements for merging have been met, I am +1 on the merge,withoutthe need for restarting the vote.On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Aaron T. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I don't necessarily disagree with the general questions about the> procedural issues of merge votes. Thanks for bringing that up in the other> thread you mentioned. To some extent it seems like much of this has been> based on custom, and if folks feel that more precisely defining the merge> vote process is warranted, then I think we should take that up over on that> thread.>> With regard to this particular merge vote, I've spoken with Chris offline> about his feelings on this. He said that he is not dead-set on restarting> the vote, though he suspects that others may be. It seems to me the> remaining unfinished asks (e.g. updating the design doc) can reasonably be> done either after this vote but before the merge to trunk proper, or could> even reasonably be done after merging to trunk.>> Given that, I'll lend my +1 to this merge. I've been reviewing the branch> pretty consistently since work started on it, and have personally> run/tested several builds of it along the way. I've also reviewed the> design thoroughly. The implementation, overall design, and API seem to me> plenty stable enough to be merged into trunk. I know that there remains a> handful of javac warnings in the branch that aren't in trunk, but I trust> those will be taken care of before the merge.>> If anyone out there does feel strongly that this merge vote should be> restarted, then please speak up soon. Again, we can restart the vote if> need be, but I honestly think we'll gain very little by doing so.>> Best,> Aaron>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Chris Nauroth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote:>> > Hi Andrew,> >> > I've come to the conclusion that I'm very confused about merge votes.> :-)> > It's not just about HDFS-4949. I'm confused about all merge votes.> > Rather than muddy the waters here, I've started a separate discussion on> > common-dev.> >> > I do agree with the general plan outlined here, and I will comment> directly> > on the HDFS-4949 jira with a binding +1 when I see that we've completed> > that plan.> >> > Chris Nauroth> > Hortonworks> > http://hortonworks.com/> >> >> >> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Andrew Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >wrote:> >> > > Hey Chris,> > >> > > Right now we're on track to have all of those things done by tomorrow.> > > Since the remaining issues are either not technical or do not involve> > major> > > changes, I was hoping we could +1 this merge vote in the spirit of "+1> > > pending jenkins". We've gotten clean unit test runs on upstream Jenkins> > as> > > well, so the only fixups we should need for test-patch.sh are findbugs> > and> > > javac (which are normally pretty trivial to clean up). Of course, all> of> > > your listed prereqs and test-patch would be taken care of before> actually> > > merging to trunk.> > >> > > So, we can reset the vote if you feel strongly about this, but it seems> > > like the only real result will be delaying the merge by a week.> > >> > > Thanks,> > > Andrew> > >> > >> > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Chris Nauroth <> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >wrote:> > >> > > > I've received some feedback that we haven't handled this merge vote> the

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICENOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.

> I don't necessarily disagree with the general questions about the> procedural issues of merge votes. Thanks for bringing that up in the other> thread you mentioned. To some extent it seems like much of this has been> based on custom, and if folks feel that more precisely defining the merge> vote process is warranted, then I think we should take that up over on that> thread.>> With regard to this particular merge vote, I've spoken with Chris offline> about his feelings on this. He said that he is not dead-set on restarting> the vote, though he suspects that others may be. It seems to me the> remaining unfinished asks (e.g. updating the design doc) can reasonably be> done either after this vote but before the merge to trunk proper, or could> even reasonably be done after merging to trunk.>> Given that, I'll lend my +1 to this merge. I've been reviewing the branch> pretty consistently since work started on it, and have personally> run/tested several builds of it along the way. I've also reviewed the> design thoroughly. The implementation, overall design, and API seem to me> plenty stable enough to be merged into trunk. I know that there remains a> handful of javac warnings in the branch that aren't in trunk, but I trust> those will be taken care of before the merge.>> If anyone out there does feel strongly that this merge vote should be> restarted, then please speak up soon. Again, we can restart the vote if> need be, but I honestly think we'll gain very little by doing so.>> Best,> Aaron>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Chris Nauroth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote:>> > Hi Andrew,> >> > I've come to the conclusion that I'm very confused about merge votes.> :-)> > It's not just about HDFS-4949. I'm confused about all merge votes.> > Rather than muddy the waters here, I've started a separate discussion on> > common-dev.> >> > I do agree with the general plan outlined here, and I will comment> directly> > on the HDFS-4949 jira with a binding +1 when I see that we've completed> > that plan.> >> > Chris Nauroth> > Hortonworks> > http://hortonworks.com/> >> >> >> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Andrew Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >wrote:> >> > > Hey Chris,> > >> > > Right now we're on track to have all of those things done by tomorrow.> > > Since the remaining issues are either not technical or do not involve> > major> > > changes, I was hoping we could +1 this merge vote in the spirit of "+1> > > pending jenkins". We've gotten clean unit test runs on upstream Jenkins> > as> > > well, so the only fixups we should need for test-patch.sh are findbugs> > and> > > javac (which are normally pretty trivial to clean up). Of course, all> of> > > your listed prereqs and test-patch would be taken care of before> actually> > > merging to trunk.> > >> > > So, we can reset the vote if you feel strongly about this, but it seems> > > like the only real result will be delaying the merge by a week.> > >> > > Thanks,> > > Andrew> > >> > >> > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Chris Nauroth <> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >wrote:> > >> > > > I've received some feedback that we haven't handled this merge vote> the> > > > same as other comparable merge votes, and that the vote should be> reset> > > > because of this.> > > >> > > > The recent custom is that we only call for the merge vote after all> > > > pre-requisites have been satisfied. This would include committing to> > the> > > > feature branch all patches that the devs deem necessary before the> code> > > > lands in trunk, posting a test plan, posting an updated design doc in

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICENOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Chris Nauroth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Hi Andrew,>> I've come to the conclusion that I'm very confused about merge votes. :-)> It's not just about HDFS-4949. I'm confused about all merge votes.> Rather than muddy the waters here, I've started a separate discussion on> common-dev.>> I do agree with the general plan outlined here, and I will comment directly> on the HDFS-4949 jira with a binding +1 when I see that we've completed> that plan.

Thanks, Chris. Andrew posted a merge patch to HDFS-4949.

We're happy that this code is getting closer to getting into trunk,since it will make it easier to integrate with the other features intrunk (like HDFS-2832). There are still some follow-up tasks, but wefeel that it's easier to do those in trunk.

I'm going to update the design doc in just a moment so be sure tocheck it out. Are there any other things we should do today prior tomerging?

Colin>> Chris Nauroth> Hortonworks> http://hortonworks.com/>>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Andrew Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:>>> Hey Chris,>>>> Right now we're on track to have all of those things done by tomorrow.>> Since the remaining issues are either not technical or do not involve major>> changes, I was hoping we could +1 this merge vote in the spirit of "+1>> pending jenkins". We've gotten clean unit test runs on upstream Jenkins as>> well, so the only fixups we should need for test-patch.sh are findbugs and>> javac (which are normally pretty trivial to clean up). Of course, all of>> your listed prereqs and test-patch would be taken care of before actually>> merging to trunk.>>>> So, we can reset the vote if you feel strongly about this, but it seems>> like the only real result will be delaying the merge by a week.>>>> Thanks,>> Andrew>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Chris Nauroth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >wrote:>>>> > I've received some feedback that we haven't handled this merge vote the>> > same as other comparable merge votes, and that the vote should be reset>> > because of this.>> >>> > The recent custom is that we only call for the merge vote after all>> > pre-requisites have been satisfied. This would include committing to the>> > feature branch all patches that the devs deem necessary before the code>> > lands in trunk, posting a test plan, posting an updated design doc in>> case>> > implementation choices diverged from the original design doc, and>> getting a>> > good test-patch run from Jenkins on the merge patch. This was the>> process>> > followed for other recent major features like HDFS-2802 (snapshots),>> > HDFS-347 (short-circuit reads via sharing file descriptors), and>> > HADOOP-8562 (Windows compatibility). In this thread, we've diverged from>> > that process by calling for a vote on a branch that hasn't yet completed>> > the pre-requisites and stating a plan for work to be done before the>> merge.>> >>> > I still support this work, but can we please restart the vote after the>> > pre-requisites have landed in the branch?>> >>> > Chris Nauroth>> > Hortonworks>> > http://hortonworks.com/>> >>> >>> >>> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Chris Nauroth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > >wrote:>> >>> > > +1>> > >>> > > Sounds great!>> > >>> > > Regarding testing caching+federation, this is another thing that I had>> > > intended to pick up as part of HDFS-5149. I'm not sure if I can get>> this>> > > done in the next 7 days, so I'll keep you posted.>> > >>> > > Chris Nauroth>> > > Hortonworks>> > > http://hortonworks.com/>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Colin McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > >wrote:>> > >>> > >> Hi Chris,>> > >>>> > >> I think it's feasible to complete those tasks in the next 7 days.>> > >> Andrew is on HDFS-5386.>> > >>>> > >> The test plan document is a great idea. We'll try to get that up>> > >> early next week. We have a lot of unit tests now, clearly, but some

> Right now we're on track to have all of those things done by tomorrow.> Since the remaining issues are either not technical or do not involve major> changes, I was hoping we could +1 this merge vote in the spirit of "+1> pending jenkins". We've gotten clean unit test runs on upstream Jenkins as> well, so the only fixups we should need for test-patch.sh are findbugs and> javac (which are normally pretty trivial to clean up). Of course, all of> your listed prereqs and test-patch would be taken care of before actually> merging to trunk.>> So, we can reset the vote if you feel strongly about this, but it seems> like the only real result will be delaying the merge by a week.>

I agree with this. Chris raised some concerns 6 days ago, but seems likethese have all been addressed since then. Resetting the vote would seem toserve little purpose except to delay the merge by another week. If themerge vote were to be restarted, I'd expect that we'd quickly see therequisite three +1s be cast, and then we'd wait around for 7 days.

Chris, does this make sense to you? Appreciate a prompt response since Ibelieve this vote is supposed to close at midnight tonight.

Thanks folks.

Best,Aaron

+

Aaron T. Myers 2013-10-24, 20:32

NEW: Monitor These Apps!

All projects made searchable here are trademarks of the Apache Software Foundation.
Service operated by Sematext